|
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R The point being that people need to get over their complacency that this is not going to affect them, because it most certainly might. We can hope that the FAA is not totally over the top and maybe only restricts RC around towered airports or similar busy places. Hmmm...”most certainly might”...sounds like a solid maybe to me:D Bottom line, we have no choice but to just wait and see and be prepared to respond...and endless formed letters won’t be good enough. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R I just got my latest issue of MA. Dave Mathewson's column speaks to the NPRM. One thing he mentions is that the AMA is fairly certain that the default path will contain four things: 1 -Altitude limits 2 - Weight limits 3 - Speed limits 4 - modeling activity in proximity to full-scale airports. Items 1, 2, and 3 will still allow maybe 95% of modelers to operate happily.. #4 is one where everyone might get negatively affected. 5NM around any charted airport is the number I keep hearing. Take a map and start drawing 5NM (5.75SM) circles around all the full-scale airports in you area and see what effect that might have. In LA it would be crippling. The FAA might also make a differentiation between established R/C fields (club fields) and 'other R/C operating areas' because the FAA knows it would be a nightmare to try to regulate unorganized R/C operations at community parks, high school stadiums, homes out in the country, etc. I am REALLY anxious to see what the NPRM has to say! Harvey |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Oh, come on people! The FAA needs to start doing something different. Those poor people are totally bored out of their minds with real aircraft. They want something new to do. Besides, this hobby will satisify their morbid desire to see planes crash. If you let the FAA get into the hobby they can call the NTSB every time one of your planes crash. Think of it! No more guessing why your plane crashed! A team of trained government investigators from the NTSB will analize your plane to find the real reason it crashed. No more guessing! I think that's great!
|
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee Oh, come on people! The FAA needs to start doing something different. Those poor people are totally bored out of their minds with real aircraft. They want something new to do. Besides, this hobby will satisify their morbid desire to see planes crash. If you let the FAA get into the hobby they can call the NTSB every time one of your planes crash. Think of it! No more guessing why your plane crashed! A team of trained government investigators from the NTSB will analize your plane to find the real reason it crashed. No more guessing! I think that's great! Harvey |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
There are many fields that operate within 5 miles of airports and the vast marjiorty have done so with no conflict for many years, If the FAA desides to close
them IMO they will do a great diservice to the hobby. I could see them maybe not allowing any new fields but to close ones that are not causing any problems I dont think is a good idea if that is what they are thinking of doing. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
<h2><font color="#800000">Been flying a full scale Private Restricted air port for over 30 years with not so much as an incedent between any model and aircraft or ultra lites</font>. If You understand how an non towered airport works you will understand why. By the FAR's all aircraft transiting over the air port shall be 500' above pattern altitude. This puts them from 1300 to 1500 feet above ground level (AGL). Aircraft intending to land shall enter the pattern at pattern altitude 1000' AGL at a 45 degree angle to the runway to the intended landing at a distance of 3/8 to 5/8 of a mile parallel to the runway on the extended down wind leg. This at no time allows aircraft and models to get any where near each each other. By Full Scale air craft flying a pattern, gives models a chance to land or orbit away from the runway in use until the aircraft has landed or left the area. As a full scale pilot and an R/C'er I fear a bird strike far more than coming in conflict with an R/C model.<br type="_moz"/></h2>
|
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: HoundDog <h2><font color="#800000">Been flying R/C on a full scale Private Restricted air port for over 30 years with not so much as an incedent between any model and aircraft or ultra lites</font>. If You understand how an non towered airport works you will understand why. By the FAR's all aircraft transiting over the air port shall be 500' above pattern altitude. This puts them from 1300 to 1500 feet above ground level (AGL). Aircraft intending to land shall enter the pattern at pattern altitude 1000' AGL at a 45 degree angle to the runway to the intended landing at a distance of 3/8 to 5/8 of a mile parallel to the runway on the extended down wind leg. This at no time allows aircraft and models to get any where near each each other. By Full Scale air craft flying a pattern, gives models a chance to land or orbit away from the runway in use until the aircraft has landed or left the area. As a full scale pilot and an R/C'er I fear a bird strike far more than coming in conflict with an R/C model.</h2> |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
HoundDog,
How about turning the volume down? Harvey |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487 HoundDog, How about turning the volume down? Harvey |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Your font size is HUGE!
Also, you double-posted. Harvey |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Hound
ORIGINAL: HoundDog Been flying R/C on a full scale Private Restricted air port for over 30 years with not so much as an incedent between any model and aircraft or ultra lites. If You understand how an non towered airport works you will understand why. By the FAR's all aircraft transiting over the air port shall be 500' above pattern altitude. This puts them from 1300 to 1500 feet above ground level (AGL). Aircraft intending to land shall enter the pattern at pattern altitude 1000' AGL at a 45 degree angle to the runway to the intended landing at a distance of 3/8 to 5/8 of a mile parallel to the runway on the extended down wind leg. This at no time allows aircraft and models to get any where near each each other. By Full Scale air craft flying a pattern, gives models a chance to land or orbit away from the runway in use until the aircraft has landed or left the area. As a full scale pilot and an R/C'er I fear a bird strike far more than coming in conflict with an R/C model. of how the Colorado Bipe Hit cant actually happen ps btw, yelling does not make a weak point more valid |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: larger;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Helps me see it Ihave to blow every one posts up in order to read it ... Keep my planes Big and In close too ... My first rule never go past the end of the runway and half the length of the runway stright out either ... and always use a spotter.</span></span></span>
|
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487 HoundDog, How about turning the volume down? Harvey <br type="_moz" /> |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: HoundDog <span style=''font-family: Comic Sans MS;''><span style=''font-size: larger;''><span style=''color: rgb(0, 0, 0);''>Helps me see it Ihave to blow every one posts up in order to read it ... Keep my planes Big and In close too ... My first rule never go past the end of the runway and half the length of the runway stright out either ... and always use a spotter.</span></span></span> Harvey |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: ira d There are many fields that operate within 5 miles of airports and the vast marjiorty have done so with no conflict for many years, If the FAA desides to close them IMO they will do a great diservice to the hobby. I could see them maybe not allowing any new fields but to close ones that are not causing any problems I dont think is a good idea if that is what they are thinking of doing. No argument that there is a long and happy history as you say. There are even a great many fileds co-located ON active airports, again, never an issue. Hopefully that will mean something to them. I just found it ominous that Dave mentioned it. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
I can't begin to tell you how much I resent the government sticking it's nose into all aspects of our lives. The FAA has made aviation so expensive with their never-ending attempts to make it risk-free, that I can no longer afford to own and fly my own airplane. Soon, I won't be able to afford to own and fly an RC airplane if they have their way. I am hoping a major change comes to this country soon and many of these innumerable, over-reaching alphabet regulatory agencies are either defunded or drastically reorganized.
|
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes. Period! Now if my model aircraft was very large like some I've seen on You-Tube (large enough to fit a animal or child in it) only then I believe there should be new, seperate laws for them because they are about the size of a Cri-Cri and should be under the Article 107 of the FAA Certification. I think the FAA should work with the AMA to restrict very large scale aircraft, weighing over 100+lbs especially the ones with a Rotax style snowmobile engine.
For example- that would mean regular AMA and or FAA inspections to be done on them, and they should be restricted from being used at least 10 miles from any small private airport. 25 miles from any international airport. And 35 miles from any millitary restricted air space unless special permissions are granted for airshows. But for the average model aircraft pilot, I think the FAA should leave us alone. But the more times people do stupid things with their aircraft- then post it on You-tube, I'm not supprised that the FAA is becoming a little nosey. Matter in fact, at the AMA/FAA Forum, the FAA stated at the meeting that they search You-tube to watch R/C aircraft and regular aviation videos. (That was a clue to me on why they are doing what they are doing investigating and probing the AMA) I think the one video of the guy flying his plane in NYC, and the one that took his parkflyer and came close to hitting a airliner on final, and the one who was flying his large 3D aircraft at a airshow when the homebuilt flew into it was one of the deciding factors ( including all the videos of people getting hit by helicopters and fixed winged aircraft on You-tube) on why the FAA wants to question the AMA for its enforcing all the rules, and asking why not all are obeying the rules. IMHO I think You-tube has done some harm to the modeling community from people that like do risky things for the sole purpose of entertainment. I think the problem we face now is with all these RTF cheap aircraft- easily obtainable by some kid including adults who don't care, and don't make a commitment to join AMA that can hurt us as a whole. I think it is some of us that fail as responsible members to try and stop people from being irresponsible with their aircraft. When ever anyone does something stupid intentionally it is my responsibility to question that individuals action. The problem I find now is what to do with the non-AMA members who do what they please? Can't report them? The AMA can't do anything and the FAA is only interrested if a full scale aircraft was involved. Last but not least, law enforcement has better things to do. It's the non-members I'm more concerned about, not the AMA card holder in general. That's my take on it. Other than that, most of us are safe so FAA- please pester someone else and leave us alone. Pete |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: Oberst No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes.<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);"> The FAA feel they have a mandate from congress to control every thing that Flys in the NAS and protect man carring aircraft from each other and anything that flys</span></span></span> Period! Now if my model aircraft was very large like some I've seen on You-Tube (large enough to fit a animal or child in it) only then I believe there should be new, seperate laws for them because they are about the size of a Cri-Cri and should be under the Article 107 of the FAA Certification. I think the FAA should work with the AMA to restrict very large scale aircraft, weighing over 100+lbs especially the ones with a Rotax style snowmobile engine. For example- that would mean regular AMA and or FAA inspections to be done on them, and they should be restricted from being used at least 10 miles from any small private airport. 25 miles from any international airport. And 35 miles from any millitary restricted air space unless special permissions are granted for airshows. <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: larger;"><span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: medium;">again U are willing to throw one segment of our hobby/sport to the wolvs. There are many large Models flowen only at sanctioned AMA fields. Few are flowen very far from the pilot and not many are ever flowen very high ... they are just large scale replicas with a scale of 10 to 20 foot wing span</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);">. Where they are nomaly flowen poses no danger to general or comercal aviation. In Fact flying them below 1000 feet with in 5 miles of a towered air port is safer than farther out because except for an instrument approach path, aircraft in an airport traffic aera or just approaching to land are required to be at pattern altitude 1000 feet AGL .Now what the FAA is worried about is the UAV / sUAS that do pose a danger to maned aircraft.</span></span></span> But for the average model aircraft pilot, I think the FAA should leave us alone. But the more times people do stupid things with their aircraft- then post it on You-tube, I'm not supprised that the FAA is becoming a little nosey. Matter in fact, at the AMA/FAA Forum, the FAA stated at the meeting that they search You-tube to watch R/C aircraft and regular aviation videos. (That was a clue to me on why they are doing what they are doing investigating and probing the AMA) I think the one video of the guy flying his plane in NYC, and the one that took his parkflyer and came close to hitting a airliner on final, and the one who was flying his large 3D aircraft at a airshow when the homebuilt flew into it was one of the deciding factors ( including all the videos of people getting hit by helicopters and fixed winged aircraft on You-tube) on why the FAA wants to question the AMA for its enforcing all the rules, and asking why not all are obeying the rules. IMHO I think You-tube has done some harm to the modeling community from people that like do risky things for the sole purpose of entertainment. I think the problem we face now is with all these RTF cheap aircraft- easily obtainable by some kid including adults who don't care, and don't make a commitment to join AMA that can hurt us as a whole. I think it is some of us that fail as responsible members to try and stop people from being irresponsible with their aircraft. When ever anyone does something stupid intentionally it is my responsibility to question that individuals action. The problem I find now is what to do with the non-AMA members who do what they please? Can't report them? <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);">These people will be required to fly under the more stringent FAR's </span></span></span>The AMA can't do anything and the FAA is only interrested if a full scale aircraft was involved. <span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;">again the FAR's are mearly a set of laws governing who what where and how, one is allowed to fly in the NAS, National Air Spase . The FAA only inforces after the infaction is commited, just like any traffic law that is broken. If we as AMA members fly under the "Special" created to be an alternet to the FAR's I don't believe much will change for us </span></span></span></span> Last but not least, law enforcement has better things to do.<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);">Don't bet on it.</span></span></span> It's the non-members I'm more concerned about, not the AMA card holder in general. That's my take on it. Other than that, most of us are safe so FAA- please pester someone else and leave us alone. Pete |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
I am hoping a major change comes to this country soon and many of these innumerable, over-reaching alphabet regulatory agencies are either defunded or drastically reorganized. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Unless the aircraft is actually taking a child or animal up I see no reason that it must be certified. Though the AMA should, and does have special rules for such aircraft. Why allow the FAA to control even large models when there has been very few issues in the past? Also just want to point out that some airports have pattern altitudes less than 1000 feet, unless that has changed since I flew full scale.
I think the one video of the guy flying his plane in NYC, and the one that took his parkflyer and came close to hitting a airliner on final, and the one who was flying his large 3D aircraft at a airshow when the homebuilt flew into it was one of the deciding factors ( including all the videos of people getting hit by helicopters and fixed winged aircraft on You-tube) on why the FAA wants to question the AMA for its enforcing all the rules, and asking why not all are obeying the rules. IMHO I think You-tube has done some harm to the modeling community from people that like do risky things for the sole purpose of entertainment. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
But for the average model aircraft pilot, I think the FAA should leave us alone. But the more times people do stupid things with their aircraft- then post it on You-tube, I'm not supprised that the FAA is becoming a little nosey. Matter in fact, at the AMA/FAA Forum, the FAA stated at the meeting that they search You-tube to watch R/C aircraft and regular aviation videos. (That was a clue to me on why they are doing what they are doing investigating and probing the AMA) We are being swept up in the Rule making process for the ever increasing number of commercial and public agency use sUAS. I think the one video of the guy flying his plane in NYC, and the one that took his parkflyer and came close to hitting a airliner on final, on why the FAA wants to question the AMA for its enforcing all the rules, and asking why not all are obeying the rules. I think it is some of us that fail as responsible members to try and stop people from being irresponsible with their aircraft. When ever anyone does something stupid intentionally it is my responsibility to question that individuals action. The problem I find now is what to do with the non-AMA members who do what they please? Can't report them? The AMA can't do anything and the FAA is only interrested if a full scale aircraft was involved. Last but not least, law enforcement has better things to do. I am in now way defending the FAA either. But I think it is important that we have our facts straight. Read Dave Mathewson's column in the back of the latest issue of Model Aviation. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot Unless the aircraft is actually taking a child or animal up I see no reason that it must be certified. Though the AMA should, and does have special rules for such aircraft. Why allow the FAA to control even large models when there has been very few issues in the past? Also just want to point out that some airports have pattern altitudes less than 1000 feet, unless that has changed since I flew full scale. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot Unless the aircraft is actually taking a child or animal up I see no reason that it must be certified. Though the AMA should, and does have special rules for such aircraft. Why allow the FAA to control even large models when there has been very few issues in the past? Also just want to point out that some airports have pattern altitudes less than 1000 feet, unless that has changed since I flew full scale. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Minor point, while this is certainly true, the airspace classifications are not necessarily based on traffic patterns, per se. Class C airspace generally extends to the ground for 5NM around the main airport. Class B can extend to the ground farther out than that. Most aircraft are not in the traffic pattern that far out from the airport. |
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: HoundDog ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot Unless the aircraft is actually taking a child or animal up I see no reason that it must be certified. Though the AMA should, and does have special rules for such aircraft. Why allow the FAA to control even large models when there has been very few issues in the past? Also just want to point out that some airports have pattern altitudes less than 1000 feet, unless that has changed since I flew full scale. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:32 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.